HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8100 of 2026 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. On the matter being taken up, learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the instant case is based on the recovery of 121.450 Kilograms of Ganja. 3. Upon the said submission being made by learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the petitioner started misbehaving in the Court and when this Court tried to pacify him, then learned counsel in a very aggressive mood started raising his voice with anger on his face and shouted that he has made his submission "Ab aapko jo order karna hai kar dein". 4. The tone and tenor of the learned Advocate was insulting in nature. On this, we started dictating order and when aforesaid act, conduct and statement made by learned counsel was dictated in open Court, then learned counsel for the petitioner tendered unconditional apology. However, the act, conduct and manner in which aforesaid statement was made is clearly derogatory to dignity of this Court and is prima facie contemptuous in nature, but taking a lenient view, we are restraining ourselves from taking any further action, with the hope and trust that such incident shall not be repeated in future. Therefore, no further action is required at this stage in the light of unconditional apology tendered by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the impugned first information report dated 30.03.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No.126 of 2026, under Sections 8, 20, 25 of N.D.P.S. Act and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Kumar Srivastava, Ganesh Shanker Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shubham Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Section 207 Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi. 6. Perusal of the impugned first information report shows that in the instant case, first information report has been registered on the basis of recovery of 121.450 Kilograms of Ganja. As per allegations made therein, it is alleged that an information was received from an informer that two persons in white coloured Tata Punch Car bearing registration no. UP 62 CM 7349 are standing near Gyanpur Railway Station road and trying to sell illegal Ganja, who may be apprehended. Subsequent to the aforesaid secret information, police party proceeded to recover the contraband article and when they arrived near railway line, Gyanpur road, they found that white Car was parked there wherein two persons were sitting. Both suspected persons sitting in the Car were apprehended, who disclosed their names as Samarjeet Yadav and Pradeep Saroj. On their joint pointing out, 3 sacks of illegal Ganja were recovered from the back boot of aforesaid Car. In first sack, a total of 39 packets of Ganja were recovered and in second sack, a total of 35 packets of Ganja were recovered and in third one, a total of 40 packets of Ganja were recovered. Therefore, a total of 114 packets of Ganja weighing 121.450 Kilograms were recovered. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the petitioner was not arrested on the spot and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. Name of the present petitioner surfaced during the interrogation of the arrested persons. Both of them have candidly stated that they were waiting for petitioner and two other persons for selling the aforesaid contraband. Therefore, name of petitioner surfaced only on the basis of the confessional statement of the two arrested persons. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case due to local rivalry. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that from the allegations made in the impugned first information report, prima facie no offence, whatsoever, is disclosed against the petitioner and as such, impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the CRLP No. 8100 of 2026 2 aforesaid prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that on the basis of information given by the informer, huge quantity of narcotics contraband (121.450 Kilograms of Ganja) has been recovered and taken into the possession. The vehicle, used for selling of the contraband had also been taken into possession and its recovery memo has been prepared. When the aforesaid illegal contraband was recovered and accused were arrested on spot, then both the accused jointly stated that they have bought this contraband for selling it to petitioner and two other persons and that is why petitioner is a named accused in the first information report. 11. It is next submitted by learned A.G.A. that confessional statement recorded during the course of investigation gives an input to the investigating agency to investigate further and is sufficient to find out the role of co-accused, as narrated in such confessional statement. There is no bar that investigation on the basis of a confessional statement recorded during the course of investigation cannot be carried out. 12. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that from the allegations made in the impugned first information report, involvement of the petitioner is writ large on the face of it and prima facie, offence is clearly disclosed against the petitioner and the matter requires deep probe and thorough investigation. 13. Learned A.G.A. has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Md. Sahabuddin & Ors. Vs. State of Assam : 2012 (119) AIC 45; Union of India Vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande : AIR 2014 SC 3625; Hira Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 2020 SC 3255; and State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar : AIR 2019 SC 84 and in view thereof, no interference at this stage is required and the instant writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 14. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taken into consideration a huge recovery of 121.450 Kilograms of Ganja, that too in 114 packets, which have been into possession by the police and due recovery memo has been prepared. It is thus clear that on the spot, both the accused persons, who have been arrested, have clearly confessed that they bought the aforesaid illegal contraband from Orissa from a person, whose name and whereabouts are not known to them and were going to deliver it to the petitioner, whose mobile number was also mentioned by them. Their statement and mobile number of petitioner clearly finds mention in the first information report. Prima facie after procurement of illegal contraband i.e. Ganja, 114 packets were prepared and put in three CRLP No. 8100 of 2026 3 sacks and after smuggling the aforesaid contraband, the arrested accused were waiting for the petitioner to sell the same. There is no legal bar in investigating the role of petitioner on the basis of confessional statement recorded during the course of investigation that too at the time of huge recovery of illegal contraband. It is also well established position of law that during investigation of a crime, names of accused may be added or deleted and similar is the position of sections of offences. The very objective of investigation is to find out truth that is why F.I.R.s even against unknown persons are registered and investigated. Confessional statement made during investigation provides new leads to investigators for further collection of evidence to find out the precise role of accused as well as to enquire in detail about the manner of offence. 15. Further, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed in the preceding paragraphs and the submissions made by learned AGA for the State and keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offence, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report, which clearly discloses cognizable offences against the petitioner, cannot be nipped in the bud at this nascent stage, particularly looking to a huge recovery of illegal narcotics contraband. 16. Therefore, we are of opinion that impugned first information report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioner and as such, the impugned first information report cannot be quashed at this stage. 17. The prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is, therefore, refused. 18. The instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. May 6, 2026 ss CRLP No. 8100 of 2026 4 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad